JCASHFAN
All American
13916 Posts
user info
edit post |
HR 5175: "Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections."
Lets talk about this gem:
- includes an amendment obligating many advocacy organizations that wish to speak out on candidates and, in certain situations, political issues, to release the identities of many of their donors, while allowing a few large mainstream organizations to preserve the privacy of their donors. Specifically, "organizations that have over 500,000 members, are over ten years old, have a presence in all 50 states and whose revenue from corporations and unions is less than 15 percent."
WTF? What has that got to do with anything? This was written specifically to exempt the NRA and would hold true for organizations like the AARP as well.
- Prohibits independent campaign expenditures by businesses that do more than $10 million in contracts with the federal government.
Does not impose a similar burden on unions that directly negotiate for salary and benefits with the government or receive government grants, or on nonprofit groups that receive grants or taxpayer funding.
- Compels organizations to disclose the names of people who give as little as $600 to politically active organizations.
The idea behind this was declared unconstitutional once before by the SCOTUS in NAACP v Alabama
- regulate not only independent expenditures regarding political candidates, but also those communications deemed to be the “functional equivalent” of such communications. This provision is susceptible of several meanings, and its ambiguity will lead individuals and organizations wishing to avoid disclosure obligations to steer clear of issue advocacy as well."functional equivalent" that is vague as fuck. A candidate could use that argument to initiate legal proceedings and bankrupt a small organization who opposed him, even if the law ultimately ruled in the organizations favor. This essentially hands power to those who can afford to sue or be sued and takes it from those who have to dedicate all their money to issue awareness.
- The DISCLOSE Act mandates disclaimers on television and radio advertisements that are so burdensome they would either drown out the intended message or discourage groups from speaking out at all.11 The individual or organizational disclosure statement, the significant funder disclosure statement, and the top-five funders statement each take up six seconds, meaning more than half of many 30-second television messages would be filled with compelled disclosures. It is difficult to even conceive of a way to use 15-second messages.
Is there a remotely constitutional justification for this? This is congress legislating the message out of political ads. They know name recognition trumps all, they just want to make it that much easier.
I pulled most of this from the ACLU's letter opposing the bill: https://ssl.capwiz.com/aclu/attachments/Ltr_to_House_re_ACLU_opposes_DISCLOSE_Act.pdf
On top of all of this, not only is the law is set to take effect 30 days after being enacted, preventing the FEC from having time to issue statements clarifying how the law would be executed but it expressly prohibits expedited judicial review.
When asked about the bill and it's effects on free speech, Rep. Michael Capuano (D-Mass.) said he wants people to worry about a fine or prison sentence when they dare to speak ill of him.
"I hope it chills out all—not one side, all sides!" said Capuano. "I have no problem whatsoever keeping everybody out. If I could keep all outside entities out, I would."  6/30/2010 7:07:36 PM
|
